| Literature DB >> 35992906 |
Yuto Uchida1,2, Hirohito Kan3, Keita Sakurai4, Kenichi Oishi2, Noriyuki Matsukawa1.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and a distressing diagnosis for individuals and caregivers. Researchers and clinical trials have mainly focused on β-amyloid plaques, which are hypothesized to be one of the most important factors for neurodegeneration in AD. Meanwhile, recent clinicopathological and radiological studies have shown closer associations of tau pathology rather than β-amyloid pathology with the onset and progression of Alzheimer's symptoms. Toward a biological definition of biomarker-based research framework for AD, the 2018 National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association working group has updated the ATN classification system for stratifying disease status in accordance with relevant pathological biomarker profiles, such as cerebral β-amyloid deposition, hyperphosphorylated tau, and neurodegeneration. In addition, altered iron metabolism has been considered to interact with abnormal proteins related to AD pathology thorough generating oxidative stress, as some prior histochemical and histopathological studies supported this iron-mediated pathomechanism. Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) has recently become more popular as a non-invasive magnetic resonance technique to quantify local tissue susceptibility with high spatial resolution, which is sensitive to the presence of iron. The association of cerebral susceptibility values with other pathological biomarkers for AD has been investigated using various QSM techniques; however, direct evidence of these associations remains elusive. In this review, we first briefly describe the principles of QSM. Second, we focus on a large variety of QSM applications, ranging from common applications, such as cerebral iron deposition, to more recent applications, such as the assessment of impaired myelination, quantification of venous oxygen saturation, and measurement of blood- brain barrier function in clinical settings for AD. Third, we mention the relationships among QSM, established biomarkers, and cognitive performance in AD. Finally, we discuss the role of QSM as an imaging biomarker as well as the expectations and limitations of clinically useful diagnostic and therapeutic implications for AD.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; MRI; biomarker; imaging; quantitative susceptibility mapping
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992906 PMCID: PMC9389285 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.938092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
Overview of MRI acquisition parameters and postprocessing techniques in QSM studies for AD continuum subjects.
| Study | MRI scanner | Field strength | Head coil | Voxel size (mm) | TE (ms) | ΔTE (ms) | Number of echoes | Acquisition sequence | Phase unwrapping | Background field removal | Dipole inversion |
|
| Trio, Siemens | 3T | 12-channel phased-array head coil | 1 × 1 × 2 | 20 | NA | NA | FLASH | Laplacian-based | NA | MEDI |
|
| Achieva, Philips | 7T | 32-channel receive array head coil | 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 | 6 | 6 | 3 (2 echoes used) | GRE | Laplacian-based | V-SHARP | LSQR |
|
| Signa, GE | 3T | 8-channel head coil | 0.94 × 0.94 × 2 | 3.5 | 4.09 | 8 | GRE (based on SWAN) | Magnitude-guided | MEDI | |
|
| Achieva, Philips | 3T | 8-channel SENSE head coil | 0.63 × 0.63 × 1.26 | 34 | NA | 1 | GRE | Quality-guided | MEDI | |
|
| Trio, Siemens | 3T | 12-channel head coil | 0.93 × 0.93 × 1.75 | 20 | NA | NA | GRE | Laplacian-based | V-SHARP | iLSQR |
|
| Achieva, Philips | 3T | 8-channel SENSE head coil | 0.68 × 0.68 × 2.2 | 3.4 | 6 | 7 | 3D FFE | NA | MEDI | |
|
| Magnetom, Siemens | 7T | 24-channel head coil | 0.7 × 0.7 × 0.7 | 10 | NA | NA | GRE | SDI QSM processing algorithm | ||
|
| Signa, GE | 3T | 8-channel head coil | 1 × 1 × 1 | 6 | 4 | 6 | bipolar GRE | Laplacian-based | SHARP | iLSQR |
|
| Ingenia, Philips | 3T | 32-channel RF receive head-coil | 0.6 × 0.6 × 2 | 3.5 | 4 | 7 | GRE | JEDI QSM processing algorithm | ||
|
| Achieva, Philips | 3T | NA | 1 × 1 × 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | GRE | Best-path based | V-SHARP | |
|
| Ingenia, Philips | 3T | 20-channel receiver head–neck coil | 1 × 1 × 1 | 6 | 6.2 | 5 | MP-QSM | Laplacian-based | V-SHARP | iLSQR |
|
| Signa, GE | 3T | 8-channel head coil | 1 × 1 × 1 | 6 | 4 | 6 (3 echoes used) | GRE | Laplacian-based | V-SHARP | LSQR |
|
| Siemens | 9.4T | 31-channel receive | 0.13 × 0.13 × 0.61 | 16.5 | NA | 1 | GRE | Laplacian-based | RE-SHARP | iLSQR |
|
| Prisma, Siemens | 3T | NA | 0.52 × 0.52 × 1.8 | 6.7 | 3.9 | 5 | GRE | STI Suite QSM processing algorithm | LSQR | |
|
| Ingenia, Philips | 3T | 32-channel | 1 × 1 × 1 | 6 | 6.2 | 5 | MP-QSM | Laplacian-based | V-SHARP | iLSQR |
AD, Alzheimer’s disease; FFE, fast field-echo; FLASH, fast low-angle shot; GRE, gradient (recalled) echo; iLSQR, iterative LSQR; JEDI, joint background-field removal and segmentation-enhanced dipole inversion; LSQR, sparse linear equation and least-squares; MEDI, morphology-enabled dipole inversion; MP-QSM, magnetization-prepared spoiled turbo multiple gradient echo sequence with inversion pulse for QSM; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not applicable; PDF, projection onto dipole fields; QSM, quantitative susceptibility mapping; RE-SHARP, Regularization-enabled SHARP; SDI, superfast dipole inversion; SHARP, Sophisticated Harmonic Artifact Reduction for Phase; SWAN, susceptibility weighted angiography; TE, echo time; V-SHARP, Variable-radius SHARP.
FIGURE 1Representative images from BBB k map (A), QSM (B), and [11C]PiB-PET SUVR (C) from a APOE ε4 non-carrier (ε3/ε3), a heterozygote (ε3/ε4), and a homozygote (ε4/ε4). The k map from the homozygote (ε4/ε4) displays the lowest k values, which are associated with increased SUVRs of [11C]PiB-PET. On the other hand, there were indiscernible differences for QSM among the groups. BBB, blood–brain barrier; PiB, Pittsburgh compound B; QSM, quantitative susceptibility mapping; SUVR, standard uptake value ratio (adapted with permission from Uchida et al., 2022b).
Overview of QSM studies for AD continuum subjects.
| Study | Modality | Sample size | Mean age (y) ± SD | Disease severity | Regions of interest | Regions of reference | Associations with established AD biomarkers and cognition |
|
| MPRAGE, QSM | AD: 8, HC: 11 | AD: 72 ± 6, HC: 70 ± 5 | MMSE: AD: 22 ± 4 | AMY, CN, GP, HP, PUT, TH, whole brain | Posterior ventricular region | No associations of QSM with HP atrophy |
|
| Amyloid PET, fMRI, QSM | MCI: 15, HC: 22 | MCI: 75.27 ± 7.63, HC: 71.91 ± 5.25 | MMSE: MCI: 28.61 ± 1.65 | AMY, CN, EC, GP, HP, NAc, neocortices, PUT, TH | Frontal central CSF | Positive associations of QSM with Aβ deposition in medial prefrontal cortex in MCI group |
|
| QSM | AD: 27, HC: 18 | AD: 78.63 ± 8.11, HC: 46.89 ± 14.69 | MMSE: AD: 14.70 ± 5.81 | CN, GP, PUL, PUT | NA | No associations of QSM with age and severity of cognitive deficits |
|
| QSM | AD: 18, MCI: 18, HC: 18 | AD: 69. 9 ± 9.81, MCI: 66.9 ± 5.51, HC: 65.2 ± 6.41 | MMSE: AD: 17.56 ± 3.5, MCI: | HP, PUT, whole brain | Posterior ventricular region | Increased QSM values of whole white matter in AD subjects |
|
| Amyloid PET, QSM | AD:19, MCI: 17, HC: 64 | Aβ+: 76.4 ± 1.0, Aβ-: 74.0 ± 0.9 | NA | Cingulate, CN, HP, neocortices | Middle frontal white matter region | Colocalization of QSM with Aβ deposition in frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes in MCI group, inverse associations of QSM with cognition in Aβ+ subjects |
|
| MPRAGE, QSM | AD: 19, MCI: 19, HC: 19 | AD: 69.79 ± 10.27, MCI: 65.95 ± 6.75, HC: 65.37 ± 6.29 | MMSE: AD: 17.37 ± 3.42, MCI: | AMY, GP, HP, neocortices, PC, PUL, PUT, TH, | Posterior ventricular region | Increased QSM values of neocortices in AD subjects |
|
| Amyloid PET, QSM | AD: 10, HC: 10 | AD: 74.1, HC: 67.1 | MMSE: AD: 23.6 ± 7.3 | GP, neocortices, PUT | CSF | No associations of QSM with amyloid-PET |
|
| Amyloid PET, QSM | Elderly: 116 | 74.81 ± 7.52 | MMSE: Elderly: 28.99 ± 1.10 | Whole brain | Deep frontal white matter | Positive associations of QSM with amyloid-PET in CN, GP, PUT, and neocortices |
|
| QSM | AD: 6, MCI: 8, HC: 10 | AD: 58 ± 6, MCI: 63 ± 6, HC: 59 ± 7 | MMSE: AD: | CN, GP, HP, PUT, TH | Corpus callosum | Increased QSM values of CN and PUT in AD subjects |
|
| Amyloid PET, QSM | Elderly: 150 (PET: 97) | Elderly: 69 ± 8 (PET: 71 ± 6) | GCS: Elderly: 0.31 6 ± 0.57 (PET: 0.33 ± 0.54) | AMY, Cingulate, CN, EC, GP, HP, neocortices, PUT | CSF | Inverse associations of QSM with cognition independent of amyloid-PET in HP |
|
| MP-QSM | AD: 38, HC: 19 | AD: 80 ± 6, HC: 71 ± 5 | NA | Whole brain | CSF | Increased QSM values of AMY, CN, and HP in AD subjects |
|
| Amyloid-PET, BOLD, QSM | APOE4+: 18, AOE4–: 51 | APOE4+: 66.28 ± 5.29 | MMSE: APOE4+: | DMN | Deep frontal white matter | Positive associations of QSM with DMN activity that in APOE4+ subjects |
|
| QSM | AD: 2, HC: 2 | NA | NA | Frontal cortex | Whole brain | Increased QSM values of frontal cortex in AD subjects |
|
| Amyloid-PET, MPRAGE, Tau-PET, QSM | MCI: 56, AD: 69, HC: 296 | AD: 68 (61–77), MCI: 77 (72–86), HC: 69 (59–76) | STMS: AD: 22 (18–28), MCI: 32 (29–33), HC: 37 (36–38) | Cingulate, CN, GP, neocortices, PUT, RN, SN, STN, TH | Frontal white matter | Positive associations of QSM with amyloid PET in pallidum and putamen, tau PET in pallidum, and lower cortical gray matter volume in medial temporal lobe |
|
| Ingenia, Philips | APOE4/4: 20, APOE3/4: 22, APOE3/3: 24 | APOE4/4: 27.6 ± 2.7, APOE3/4: 27.6 ± 2.5, APOE3/3: 28.0 ± 2.1 | MMSE: APOE4/4: 72.8 ± 5.6, APOE3/4: 72.1 ± 6.1, APOE3/3:71.7 ± 6.2 | Cingulate, neocortices, PC | CSF | Positive associations of QSM with amyloid PET in frontal lobe independent of APOE4 dose, inverse associations of QSM with executive function independent of APOE4 dose |
AD, Alzheimer’s disease; AMY, amygdala; APOE, apolipoprotein E; BOLD, blood oxygen level dependent; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; CN, caudate nucleus; DMN, default mode network; EC, entorhinal cortex; GCS, global cognitive composite score; GP, globus pallidus; HC, healthy control; HP, hippocampus; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, mini-mental state examination; MP-QSM, magnetization-prepared spoiled turbo multiple gradient echo sequence with inversion pulse for QSM; MPRAGE, magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo; NA, not applicable; NAc, nucleus accumbens; PC, precuneus; PET, positron emission tomography; QSM, quantitative susceptibility mapping; RN, red nucleus; SD, standard deviation; SN, substantia nigra; STMS, short test of mental status; STN, subthalamic nucleus; TH, thalamus.
FIGURE 2Diagram of voxel-based morphometry and magnetic susceptibility analyses (A) and results of the voxel-based analyses (B). The top of the left-hand panel shows the procedure of the voxel-based morphometry analysis. The top of the right-hand panel shows the procedures of the susceptibility estimation and spatial normalization of the map for the voxel-based magnetic susceptibility analysis. The bottom panel shows the results of voxel-based morphometry and magnetic susceptibility comparisons between elderly volunteers and patients with Alzheimer’s disease. A corrected P-value of < 0.05 with the family-wise error correction was applied as the threshold to detect regional volume decreases and susceptibility increases in the Alzheimer’s disease group. GM, gray matter; VBMSM, voxel-based magnetic susceptibility and morphometry; WM, white matter (adapted with permission from Kan et al., 2020).
FIGURE 3The left-hand panel shows the pipeline for the multi-atlas approaches for each individual QSM/T1WI image through the MRICloud platform (https://mricloud.org/) (A). The right-hand panel shows the pipeline for developing the machine learning-based models (B). MNI, Montreal Neurologic Institute; PD-MCI, Parkinson’s disease with mild cognitive impairment; PD-CN, Parkinson’s disease with normal cognition; QSM, quantitative susceptibility mapping; T1WI, T1-weighted image (adapted with permission from Shibata et al., 2022).